Crowninshield v. Foster
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract, to recover a commission on a sale of real estate in Brookline. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Richardson, J., the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; and the defendant alleged exceptions. The facts material to the point decided appear in the opinion. The case was argued at the bar in March, 1897, and after-wards was submitted on briefs to all the justices.
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
It was held in Dowling v. Morrill, 165 Mass. 491, that a broker who does not have the exclusive sale of real estate does not become entitled to a commission merely by bringing the property to the attention of the person who finally buys it, *238but he must also show that his services were the efficient or effective means of bringing about the actual sale. In the present case the plaintiff brought the property to the attention of Allen, the person who finally bought it, and obtained from him two different offers, both of which were rejected by the defendant ; and there was evidence tending to show…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Dowling v. MorrillMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1896
3Cited by12 opinions
- Whitcomb v. BaconMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1898
- Pacheco v. MedeirosMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
- Nichols v. AthertonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1924
- Carnes v. FiniganMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
- Palmer v. CherneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1930
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.